"THE FRENCH BLACKS, MULATTOES, AND AFRICAN SLAVES WANTED TO TAKE THE COUNTRY, IT'S TRADE AND VALUE FOR THEMSELVES..."

-ROMAN GARZA

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HAITIAN REVOLUTION

PUBLISHED: 12th March, 2018 | By ROMAN GARZA

Revolution is a widely used term. When we speak of revolution, there are those of us who think of it as a massive change of a system, or a 180º turn in terms of how something has functioned, and how a collective will decide to function in the future. There are then those who understand revolutions as a black clad, red nightmare. An unnecessary flipping of a current system on it's head, either becoming an opposite to it's prior values, or a slightly altered, different version of what was known before. Both instances in history are true, but we must be able to tell one from the other.

We have multiple types of these events to learn from, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. The problem with those that seek to influence the here and now, is that they see reality and historical narratives mistakenly with a false worldview that doesn't take into account facts they either don't like, or perspectives they would prefer to ignore. One may look at the Russian Revolution as something fantastic, or having some kind of moral purpose for the workers of the nation. Obviously, it was not. It resulted in the institution of a system that killed millions and perpetuated Marxist ideology all across the world, but what I want to address is the Haitian Revolution.

The revolution in Haiti is one that is being seen as something righteous and justified. Although officially, scholars and other historians do address the fact that every white colonist, slave owner, farmer and ordinary citizen was killed on the island. Yet, Libertarianism.org, in a piece you can look at here, that talks about those events very plainly, and the whole discussion seems as if it's pressured by the fact that they killed every non-black on the island, but it is not discussed as the atrocity it was.

What began in the year 1791 as an 'anti-slavery' uprising against French colonists, resulted in the massacre of the French who had lived and settled their own colonized island. Like all revolutions, it began with dissidence and subversion. No one can really make the case that slavery is an efficient moral economic practice, because it simply is not. It was a short lived and dabbled practice in the colonial time period, in my opinion it was a net positive for Africans, absent the ideal standard. If the French and Spanish hadn't colonized those southern American islands, took part in the Atlantic slave trade organized by African and Middle Eastern countries, then those same Africans would have still been slaves in their hellish homeland or the Middle East.

So, the case for dissidence is present, although I believe the in-group preferences of Africans, and the unwillingness to assimilate or leave was what ended up in a massive battle against the European, mainly French colonialists. Most historians have acknowledged that the Haitian revolution is similar to that of the French revolution, but a main takeaway is that it was not primarily an 'anti-slavery' push, the Haitian blacks wanted citizenship and political rights for themselves, only one of many organized resistance leaders spoke about the abolition of slavery. Somewhat like in the United States Civil War, where slavery was hardly a secondary issue or cause the war. Same here, as the slaves did not just want slavery to end, but also wanted de-segregation and an allocation of the colonists land and wealth. The subversion, was through who first started the disobedience - Toussaint Louverture. One of many who allied for a Black resistance.

Louverture, among many other Blacks and Mulattoes (of White and African descent), organized secretly to plan, to attack, and overthrow colonial ships, plantations and government officials. The interesting thing about a few resistance leaders is that they are influenced by the same French writers that the French revolution was. Many resistance leaders, including Louverture would actually correspond and receive support from other countries like Britain, and France itself. Revolutions are hardly ever grassroots, with these influences coming from western countries, it seems like a more inside collapse job than what is told through history books. An organized insurrection of French royalists and socialists who wrapped their endeavours in enlightenment idealism, but resulted in absolute savagery.

Another point to capitalize on is that in the totality of the United States at it's peak of slavery, only about 6% of the population owned or utilized a slave, white or non-white. Slave labor, as we know now, was not heavily productive, and the cotton trade only produced 30% of the Confederate states' GDP. So my contention is that Haiti is known to have produced plenty with it's advanced irrigation laid down by the French, and with abundant sugar cane farming, it was a resource rich island that economically boomed in that era, with far less slaves than America. Slaves were essentially second-class citizens that would be treated subjectively, and were more or less guests to the state of the assumed power, and while the cause of 'anti-slavery' is just, and that those who know freedom and prosperity ought to grasp it, what resulted was not that of prosperity, but an anti-white conquest for resources.

​The fact that there were 'former' slaves, and opportunities to leave the island and become educated in other countries were present, leads to a likely possibility that, while slave practices in Haiti were fundamentally wrong, but as in North American it was not as detrimentally horrid and evil as it is portrayed. Having only existed as a necessary evil at the time, respectively since Europeans were warring with other Europeans to end it, just as quickly as they adopted it. They had brought these foreign peoples to their settlements, gave them a better existence and kept them as slaves, and not even 100 years into the practice were there discussions to free these people, own up to the slave trades made and allow them live in our countries, but separate from us, as to not cause conflict.

This was not exactly the case in colonial Haiti. The French blacks, mulattoes, and African slaves wanted to take the country, it's trade and value for themselves. Despite Louverture's goal of obtaining a balance between France's western ideals and abolishing slavery. The French had feared such a revolt, and were well armed with some defensive preparations. But within weeks, the number of slaves who joined the revolt reached some 100,000. Within the next two months, as the violence escalated, the slaves killed 4,000 whites and burned or destroyed 180 sugar plantations and hundreds of coffee and indigo plantations. At least 900 coffee plantations were destroyed, and the total damage inflicted over the next two weeks amounted to 2 million French. In September 1791, the surviving whites organized into militias and struck back, killing about 15,000 blacks in a spirit of revenge.

Though demanding freedom from slavery, the rebels did not demand independence from France at this point. Most of the rebel leaders professed to be fighting for the king of France, who they believed had issued a decree freeing the slaves, which had been suppressed by the governor. As such, they were demanding their rights as Frenchmen which had been granted by the king. Where they go wrong there, is that they want the same citizenship and rights as the French, to which they were not entitled to. This tension unfortunately led to the black resistance, former slaves, Spanish sects and French Royalists to lead war against the plantations, piers, and land masses owned by the French Republic colonists.

Interestingly, some former slaves joined the side of the Republic once violence had escalated, and Great Britian had allied with the Black resistance and French Royalists. At the turn of the 18th Century, the Spanish had switched sides to the French Republic and fought against what was now called "Louverture's Loyalists". Finally, near the end of the revolt the Loyalists, ex-slaves and now the United Kingdom had aided in the Haitian's eradication of the French. Day by day, after the official uprising had virtually ended, by the thousands, the Black resistance continued to hunt down, decapitate and maim the remaining French. Not only Frenchmen, but all Europeans or those classified White.​This is the tragedy of the Haitian Revolution. What is largely understood as a justified slave revolt, turns out to be another bloody insurrection with failed enlightenment idealistic goals. Educators and group leaders, plagued with "white guilt" talk about the revolution as if it was the greatest statement against racism ever made. Because when blacks kill whites, it is seen as righteous, and when whites do something out of line, it is reason for national outrage. History, especially political revolts must be correctly seen as they are, and not coated in idealism and Marxist drivel that allows the narrative to be seen as a constructive effort and distracts from the ultimate result - modern day Haiti.